Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In relation to the crime No. 2 of the crime indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the victim’s left side of the victim, there is no fact-finding.

B) With respect to the special injury under Paragraph (3) of the crime of the judgment below, the defendant did not have any fact that he collected the injury, or did not assault the victims, and even if his body fighting was conducted, it constitutes self-defense with a view to defending the victims' assault. C) As to the crime of Paragraph (3) of the crime in the judgment below, the defendant did not have any fact of threatening the victims or obstructing their medical treatment in an emergency room in relation to the violation of Paragraph (6) of the Medical Service Act and the violation of Article 6 of the judgment of the court below (D) of the crime of Paragraph (10) of the crime of the judgment of the court below, there was no fact that the defendant has threatened the victims or obstructed the hospital's business by threatening the victims, or preventing the disturbance

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. 3) It is unreasonable to order the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device to an unfair attachment order.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense, since the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim L at each time and each place of the lower judgment (Article 2 of the facts stated in the original judgment). The Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense inasmuch as physical fighting was committed in the course of preventing the Defendant from disturbing the disturbance at the business shop operated by the victims (Article 3 of the facts stated in the original judgment, and Article 3 of the facts charged in the judgment).